cliffy Posted August 16, 2020 Author Report Posted August 16, 2020 The point being was- where would a new generation of pilots want to spend their money? On a half century old design or a brand new airplane with a warranty and the looks of a new sports car? We can market to ourselves and ignore the outside world or we can acknowledge that time marches on. How many Mooney owners require 4 seats and full IFR capability? How many actually use it? How many 40 something newbies looking to get into flying might start with a 2 place SP airplane with Day VFR capability for their kind of flying? Not everyone wants to go bouncing off in weather and rain. Many, possibly most, just want to go on day trips or CAVU weekend trips. The world is a changing What was leading edge 50 years ago is antique today. Quote
Ibra Posted August 16, 2020 Report Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, aviatoreb said: But why are you still looking? You already have the best. Takes another Mooniac to tell you that, in case you did not notice 2 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted August 16, 2020 Report Posted August 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, cliffy said: The point being was- where would a new generation of pilots want to spend their money? On a half century old design or a brand new airplane with a warranty and the looks of a new sports car? We can market to ourselves and ignore the outside world or we can acknowledge that time marches on. How many Mooney owners require 4 seats and full IFR capability? How many actually use it? How many 40 something newbies looking to get into flying might start with a 2 place SP airplane with Day VFR capability for their kind of flying? Not everyone wants to go bouncing off in weather and rain. Many, possibly most, just want to go on day trips or CAVU weekend trips. The world is a changing What was leading edge 50 years ago is antique today. And the counter point is that no one has as of yet, come up with anything that can rival Al Mooney's 50+ year old design. I would love the "brand new, with a warranty, and sports car looks" but not at the expense of the capability of my Mooney. If I didn't need four seats, I'd be flying an RV7 or 14. 2 Quote
cliffy Posted August 16, 2020 Author Report Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said: And the counter point is that no one has as of yet, come up with anything that can rival Al Mooney's 50+ year old design. I would love the "brand new, with a warranty, and sports car looks" but not at the expense of the capability of my Mooney. If I didn't need four seats, I'd be flying an RV7 or 14. Agreed, but we are selling to ourselves and missing the "new" market in aviation with a half century old design- no matter how much WE like it. The "new" market is not buying it (pun intended). 2 Quote
Schllc Posted August 16, 2020 Report Posted August 16, 2020 5 hours ago, cliffy said: The point being was- where would a new generation of pilots want to spend their money? On a half century old design or a brand new airplane with a warranty and the looks of a new sports car? We can market to ourselves and ignore the outside world or we can acknowledge that time marches on. How many Mooney owners require 4 seats and full IFR capability? How many actually use it? How many 40 something newbies looking to get into flying might start with a 2 place SP airplane with Day VFR capability for their kind of flying? Not everyone wants to go bouncing off in weather and rain. Many, possibly most, just want to go on day trips or CAVU weekend trips. The world is a changing What was leading edge 50 years ago is antique today. I can tell you from personal experience that any warranty on an airplane is grossly overrated. I would go as far to say it wouldn't be a factor for me in buying a plane again at all. if the FAA wasn’t such a messed up anachronism there may be a real wave of innovation. In my humble opinion, the reality is that aside from the ballistic parachute nothing made today outperforms the Mooney for speed and efficiency, or the bonanza for speed with payload. it’s easy to convince oneself that new is better, but after you fly for a while you realize that isn’t axiomatic in aviation. Cirrus’s accomplishment isn’t a better plane, it’s better marketing, and a financing machine that makes it easy to own. Innovation in aerodynamics doesn’t happen in leaps and bounds and thanks to the FAA, it pretty much barely happens at all in GA. Mooney has lost its shot to compete in the modern market of throwaway goods, and buying predicated on monthly payments. Good marketing and advertising works, no doubt about it, and selling the caps system as a panacea was effective. But any objective pilot can’t argue the pros of a mooney. That doesn’t mean it’s the best plane for everyone, but their attributes and capability is clearly established. I’ve got about 20 hours in an SR20 and SR22, and while I’m obviously biased, I was very underwhelmed. I didn’t really enjoy flying the cirrus, I think most of it was the side yoke, but it also just felt cheap if that is relatable. 4 Quote
aviatoreb Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 43 minutes ago, Schllc said: I’ve got about 20 hours in an SR20 and SR22, and while I’m obviously biased, I was very underwhelmed. I didn’t really enjoy flying the cirrus, I think most of it was the side yoke, but it also just felt cheap if that is relatable. I flew a little in the SR22 and I was also underwhelmed with it as a pilots airplane - the road feel. I won't say it doesn't have other attributes but that was not what I was looking for - or I would be flying that instead. 1 Quote
aviatoreb Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 6 hours ago, kortopates said: It is a really nice light sport aircraft, definitely efficient and even comes with a parachute and retractable gear - a combination we don't see. But its only a two seater and the cockpit sure doesn't look as survivable as a Mooney; despite the parachute. I think between the parachute and the fact that it has a 30kts stall speed probably makes for a relatively safe airplane - those fowler flaps/30kts stall speed go a long way to make up for perhaps less robust crash/crumple zone. Slowing down your stall speed is a superb extra for added safety. It was a major thought in my mind when I added vortex generators 10 years ago. I would say it slowed down my stall speed 5kts. Of all the things of this interesting little Risen airplane, I am most impressed with the amazing 30kts stall speed in an airplane that otherwise is quite decent fast. E 1 Quote
Hank Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, aviatoreb said: Of all the things of this interesting little Risen airplane, I am most impressed with the amazing 30kts stall speed in an airplane that otherwise is quite decent fast. An important factor in stall speed is weight. This thing maxes out several hundred pounds below the empty weight of my C, much less your Rocket. Quote
aviatoreb Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Hank said: An important factor in stall speed is weight. This thing maxes out several hundred pounds below the empty weight of my C, much less your Rocket. Wing loading more than weight. An airplane as heavy as my K can stall much slower with a bigger wing area. But those fowler flaps also change the stalling angle of attack a lot as far as I understand the issue. I wish the Mooneys had a fowler flap. The M30 did. On the other hand - I bet they could have made a much faster airplane if they made a smaller wing. But the stall speed would also be higher - given the stall speed is a crazy-impresively-low 30 - maybe it would be ok to sacrafice that - a little faster stall speed for a much faster cruise speed. Edited August 17, 2020 by aviatoreb Quote
ArtVandelay Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 An important factor in stall speed is weight. This thing maxes out several hundred pounds below the empty weight of my C, much less your Rocket. Weight is an important factor for drag as well, the lighter you are the less drag you’ll have. Quote
carusoam Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 Wait a minute... I thought it was weight that affected the AOA causing more drag... Its a plain issue for planes... MS... improving spelling daily... Best regards, -a- Quote
Ibra Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 How come my friend C182 king katmai has more weight and useful load than my M20J stall at 35KCAS while me 55kts (well I am 25kts faster in cruise but let's leave that a moment), I am sure it has to do with that bloody ugly canard wing in the front 1 Quote
carusoam Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 Erik hit on the topic of speed range... It is difficult to spread stall speed far away from cruise speed... So a slow stall speed, makes a slow cruise speed... Somebody also mentioned Brand B for their UL... at the cost of cruise speed... Now if we improved our flap design and construction to lower stall speed... We may incur an unaffordable cost... We would need to ask our aero guys... Best regards, -a- Quote
Ibra Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, carusoam said: So a slow stall speed, makes a slow cruise speed... Yes that is bloody hard as wing load appears in both (VC DESIGN = 33*SQRT(WL) and VS = SQRT(WL/CLMAX)) where CL is lift coefficient Power-to-weight appear in straight and level cruise speed, so you need to throw load of GPH to fly fast cruise on low CLmin and high CDmax Sadly as we talk about this, Risen had their 1st fatal accident in Germany, that airfield is about 2600ft and seems to have few landout options on both sides but nothing on the accident yet...https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/240099 Edited August 17, 2020 by Ibra Quote
Seth Posted August 17, 2020 Report Posted August 17, 2020 Hank and Erik bring up good points. Want to learn more about this one. Striking and beautiful design. When Oshkosh returns (in 2021, 2022, 2023, whenever it occurs again) I'll check out their booth in person! -Seth 1 Quote
carusoam Posted August 18, 2020 Report Posted August 18, 2020 19 hours ago, Ibra said: Yes that is bloody hard as wing load appears in both (VC DESIGN = 33*SQRT(WL) and VS = SQRT(WL/CLMAX)) where CL is lift coefficient Power-to-weight appear in straight and level cruise speed, so you need to throw load of GPH to fly fast cruise on low CLmin and high CDmax Sadly as we talk about this, Risen had their 1st fatal accident in Germany, that airfield is about 2600ft and seems to have few landout options on both sides but nothing on the accident yet...https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/240099 we were discussing cornfields the other day... There wasn’t much I could discern from the German accident description.... There was a bit more than I could copy... cornfield and fire after take-off... -a- A small plane crashed at the airfield in Porta Westfalica Vennebeck this afternoon. According to initial information, it crashed into a corn field near the runway immediately after take-off. The machine was on fire Quote
Parker_Woodruff Posted August 18, 2020 Report Posted August 18, 2020 This looks really warm for summer months... Quote
hammdo Posted August 18, 2020 Report Posted August 18, 2020 Like the Cozy and other Canopy types... -Don Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.